JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

S. Serto, J.

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for quashing and setting aside the Charge-Sheet No. 71/2014 submitted by the Naharlagun Police in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia in respect of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 51/2014 under Section 366 IPC.

Heard Mr. Vijay Jamoh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. M. Tang, learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. Facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the present petition are as follows; that on 04.12.2014, the petitioner No. 1 lodged an FIR at Naharlagun Police Station stating that his daughter i.e. petitioner No. 2 has been kidnapped/abducted to compel her marriage by the petitioner No. 3 who now has become his son in law having married the petitioner No. 2.

Following the said complaint, the FIR being Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 51/2014 was registered under Section 366 of the IPC against the petitioner No. 3. However, it was found later on that it was not a case of kidnapping or abduction but as consensual elopement, therefore, 2 families i.e. the families of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and the family members of petitioner No. 3 settled the issues amicably and got the two petitioners i.e. petitioner No. 2 & petitioner No. 3 married with each other. Ever since then, the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 has lived together as husband and wife peacefully and joyfully. But being ignorant about the process of law, the 2 families did not meet the Police for closure of the FIR. Therefore, the Police being oblivious of what has taken place between the parties proceeded with the investigation and submitted the Charge-Sheet which is impugned, herein.

Having realized at least that the same needs to be quashed and set aside have come to this Court invoking this Court's jurisdiction under section 482 CRPC, 1973.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the two families have settled the issues amicably and as a result of the settlement, the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 have been married and are leaving together as husband and wife peacefully and happily to keep the Charge-Sheet alive and allow the Court having jurisdiction to try the case would not be in the interest of both the husband and wife and the cordial relationship of the 2 families that has been brought about and cemented by the marriage.

The learned counsel further submitted that in the given situation, the prosecution of the petitioner No. 3 in the case would be a lame prosecution which would amount to wastage of time and energy. The learned counsel cited 2 (two) judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the following cases; the relevant paras referred to by the learned counsel are reproduced herein below one after the other;

(1) Yogendra Yadav & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653, Para-4 to 6;

"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab. However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quash

Click Here to Read the rest of this document